If you had April 23, 2024 as the biggest day in employment law of the year on your bingo card, congratulations. You won. Hands down. Yesterday was such a blockbuster of a day, it’s hard to wrap your head around it. (My partner Sarah Westby and I have tried, and have summarized the results on our sister blog, Employment Law Letter.) With new rules on non-compete agreements and overtime exemptions, there’s a lot to digest. First, the Federal Trade Commission released it’s final rule that bans virtually all non-compete agreements for workers in the United States. The rule is scheduled to go into ..read more

The end of the General Assembly is quickly coming upon us. So it’s a good time to look at what bills are still floating around in this year’s term and what’s dead (or mostly dead) for the year. Here are just a few of the highlights: House Bill 5269, which would have banned certain noncompete agreements died in the Judiciary Committee this month, ending its chances of passage this year. But employers have bigger issues to worry about; the FTC is expected to release it’s own ban on non-compete agreements as early as this week. So stay tuned. Senate Bill 4 is still very much alive. The bill wou ..read more

Tomorrow, the EEOC is expected to publish its final regulations for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. They were previewed in a press release earlier this week. Since nearly every lawfirm is producing their own summary of what are, in my view, fairly straightforward implementation regulations, this post will take a different tact — namely how these regulations are the same (or differ) from Connecticut’s own pregnancy accommodations statute and guidance. As Connecticut employers no doubt should recall, Connecticut passed expansive changes to the pregnancy discrimination law in 2017 back requir ..read more

It’s March and things are heating up at the General Assembly so let’s get right at the bills that employers should be aware of. Senate Bill 4 — which is deemed to be a Senate caucus priority bill, and thus something employers should pay attention to — redefines discrimination in a way that has never been done before and attacks non-disclosure agreements in doing so. A public hearing is scheduled for March 20th. The bill would create a new cause of action in court for the following “discriminatory practice” For an employer, by the employer or the employer’s agent to: (A) Refuse to hire or empl ..read more

This month, I published a new article for Practicing Law Institute Chronicle entitled Neurodiversity in the Workplace. The article builds off a post I did last November by taking a look at some of the cases that have tackled the subject. For those unfamiliar with the topic, I summarized it in the article as follows: Neurodiversity, according to Harvard Health Publishing, is defined as “the idea that people experience and interact with the world around them in many different ways; that there is no one ‘right’ way of thinking, learning, and behaving, and differences are not viewed as deficits ..read more

Last week, Law360 quoted me in an article on marital status discrimination. (They timed it for Valentine’s Day; make of that what you will.) The gist of the article is that marital status discrimination is something for employers to be mindful of. And for that premise, I’m in agreement. Several states, including Connecticut, explicitly prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status. In fact, it’s right there in Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-60(b)(1): It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section. for an employer… to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to di ..read more

Employment discrimination claims are often decided on the merits of the claim. Courts routinely have to answer the question: Did the employer discriminate on the basis of a protected class against an employee in terminating the employment of that individual? But there’s another class of cases that can resolved on procedural grounds, often times in the employer’s favor. Employment discrimination claims have a statute of limitations. In Connecticut, if discrimination claims aren’t filed with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights or Opportunities or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissi ..read more

Don’t believe the hype — Valentine’s Day may be for lovers, but for employers, it’s only trouble. Indeed, back in 2011, I highlighted the perils of Valentine’s Day for employers recapping various cases in which Valentine’s Day played a central role. Given the day, I thought I would reprint it today as a reminder — please don’t send out hearts to your office crush. It’s Valentine’s Day! Chocolate, flowers, what could go wrong? There are, of course, a few of you who are scratching your head and thinking “How can anything go wrong? It’s a holiday full of love and romance!” And therein lies the p ..read more

As I took a bit of a breather with some blog posts, I’m pleased to announce another new episode of the From Lawyer to Employer podcast that I’ve been hosting these last several months. On the latest episode, I invite Nina Pirrotti, an employee-side attorney who has appeared on this blog many times before, to talk about some of the latest developments in employment law. We tackle the current state of non-disclosure agreements (including some legislation that is being proposed at the state level), non-compete agreements, and even artificial intelligence. This 20-minute episode is perfect for yo ..read more

Over on my firm’s sister blog, the Employment Law Letter, my colleagues have a post this week about the issuance of final rule on Independent Contractors by the United States Department of Labor. As they note, the Final Rule establishes “a six-factor test based on the economic reality of the worker and potential employer relationship and may have a substantial impact on a number of industries.” On first glance, it seems to make some sense when trying to figure out if someone is an employee or independent contractor. After all, the new test will return to a “totality of the circumstances” anal ..read more